Braving This New World Disorder - Part 2

A test case of the United State's new approach to funding democracy occurred this past weekend in Bahrain. On Nov. 12, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met in Bahrain with representatives of governments of what the State Department has termed the "Broader Middle East" in the second annual Forum for the Future. The summit discussed the US Foundation for Freedom initiative and it's two funds--one aimed at supporting small-business in the region with an initial funding of $100 million, and the second with $54 million aimed at encouraging democratic transition by supporting civil society in the region. The grant-based foundation is part of the United States Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) managed by the Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Liz Cheney, daughter of US Vice President Dick Cheney. The Foundation is currently being directed out of Washington, DC with expertise funded by the World Bank, amongst others, although plans are to eventually base it in the Middle East. The Foundation’s objective is to support and offer grants to individuals and groups in the Middle East to promote democracy, including recipients who are not registered or licensed to operate by any government. The US officials left the summit in dismay after a failure to secure the agreement it wanted, after Egypt objected to the US requirement that the fund be allowed to circumvent national laws and go directly to recipients selected by the Foundation and its donors. Egypt, not opposed to the concept in principle, raised concerns about allowing domestic individuals and groups to receive external funding if not legally registered as non-government organizations.

This situation raises questions at various levels. In the context of combating terrorism and its funding sources, why is the US opposed to governments allowing only registered groups to be recipients of external funding? Secondly, democracy, as a multi-faceted right of all individuals, must be grounded in the rule of law, so why is the US supporting activity that is outside of the law? Thirdly, domestic US law itself does not allow candidates for state or federal office or political parties to receive external funding. Even such liberal organizations as MoveOn.org announced that they would no longer allow funding from foreign sources. Why, then, is the US promoting such activity elsewhere? While furthering democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere is a commendable ambition, serious thought should be given to it being done at the expense of respect for the rule of law and by allowing loopholes through which seditious and terrorist activity may find sustenance. Again, perhaps a more inclusionary, rather than exclusionary, and effective strategy would be to examine the laws governing the registration of non-government organizations in respective state domestic laws and supporting measures to remove any barriers to registration of groups with legitimate objectives including the promotion of democratic values.

More to the point, what exactly is the likely outcome of this intense US push to backdoor state sovereignty and legal frameworks the world over? As we have seen in Iraq, democracy is not something that can easily be "brought," to put it lightly, and it surely can not be "bought" either. With recent revelations such as secret CIA prisons, use of white phosphorous incendiary bombs in Falluja, and torture and degrading treatment at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the democracy flag that the US is waving increasingly looks to have a very ugly face. Furthermore, the US’ utter disdain for multilateralism, as evidenced in the rejection of Kyoto, and the International Criminal Court, as well as its failure to respect its own existing international treaty obligations such as the Geneva Conventions with respect to captured combatants, is torpedoing the concept of international law itself.

In the midst of all this maneuvering, such questions must be posed. What is the world image the US is trying to shape through the United Nations and other tools? The UN's original objective of ensuring world peace, security and human rights rose out of the ashes of the Second World War. It is based on the supremacy of state sovereignty and a respect for international law and multilateralism. Is the US trying to revamp the UN to take on a new role, one in which state sovereignty and international law now take a back seat to US concepts of democratic design in the US image? The reality is that the US is approaching democracy as though it is an acquired taste, one which only the US appreciates and that it must be “forced” upon states. The reality is that democracy is not a US taste, nor is it a US forte, but even that is secondary to the fact that democracy can only be embraced if seen with an inclusionary and kinder face.

Braving This New World Disorder - Part 1

"WE THE PEOPLE'S OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom..."
Opening words, Preamble, United Nations Charter

The US is embarking on a new approach to international diplomacy and the United Nations is its unlikely tool. “Structure states in our image” seems to be the overriding philosophy at the US State Department, especially since US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took over the helm. With the embedment of Ambassador John Bolton in the UN, concepts such as "democracy caucus of like-minded nations,” engendering representative government voting, and external source funding to empower civil society seem to be the main rally cries. Eager ideologues such as Mark Lagon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs are busy spinning their agenda with the silky yarn of ideals which, on the face of it, are hard to argue. A deeper look will show that what the US is really doing is an exercise in selective reasoning and exclusionary diplomacy grounded in jurisprudence by expediency with a degrading impact on the respect for international law and the very concept of the sovereignty of states. With a "you are with us or you are against us" sieve to weed the chaff from the grain, states are encouraged to “get with the program” or risk being designated as chaff and blown away in the winds of American wrath.

So, what are these new rally cries and how do they impact the United Nations, international law and state sovereignty? The US is actively maneuvering with the idea that democracy-loving states of the world need to come together to form a “democracy-caucus of like-minded nations” within the UN. In fact, the reasoning, as explained recently by Mark Lagon, is if countries can come together to form Islamic fronts, South-South dialogues, and nonaligned movements, why can't states that embody democratic principles come together to form a “democracy-caucus?” Very interesting logic, especially as it seemed to apply so readily during the cold war with “freedom-loving democracies” facing off against the socialist bloc: That is the kind of polarized world in which this US State Department leadership seems most able to operate. And yet, it seems to neglect the fact that such exclusionary diplomacy led to decades of cold war politics which often brought the world to the brink of all-out war, and festered in the form of regional hot wars where smaller states were forced to choose sides with devastating social and economic results. The world sighed with relief with the falling of the Berlin wall, yet this new strategy is threatening to re-create the very same world, albeit along different fault lines.

More relevant, perhaps, is that those blocs Dr. Lagon points to are exclusionary by default and not design—a very significant distinction. In other words, those blocs emerge as a result of a characteristic that binds its constituents together exclusively (such as Islamic) or because they are attempting to address a problem to be resolved such as economic development or political hegemony. Democracy is not a characteristic one either has exclusively or is trying to shed exclusively; it is an aspiration within the reach of all peoples. It is inclusionary in nature and not exclusionary. Furthermore, if democracy is an ideal all states should be striving towards, by creating a “democracy-caucus for like-minded nations”, the US as the only world superpower is indicating that democracy is not the objective, but rather like-mindedness is.

Carrying such exclusionary logic further, this emerging “democratic-caucus” is now laying the groundwork for the disenfranchisement of all states who are not members of the club. The argument here is while the United Nations is based on the democratic principle of one-nation, one-vote, this is not actually democracy because not all the states represented at the United Nations actually democratically represent their respective peoples. Accordingly, if the government itself is not of a democratic state, how can it have a vote at the United Nations and still maintain that the United Nations is democratic? Once again, while interesting selective reasoning, with perhaps some slight fallacy in composition, it flies in the face of the very essence of the United Nations in respecting all nations, large and small, based on the sacrosanct principle of state sovereignty and inclusionary diplomacy.

What then is the emerging scenario from this logic? As of 2004, there were 88 countries rated by Freedom House as being free or democratic. The United Nations has 191 member states. Do states such as China, Russia, and even Iran then lose their right to vote at the United Nations? Shall the other 103 states be stripped of their sovereignty and be relegated, perhaps, to observer status, like the Palestinian Authority, while the club of 88, assuming they even all want to join the caucus, then vote on all issues before the United Nations such as the respect and creation of international law, to maintain international peace and security and promotion of human rights? It is not very difficult to see that such an exclusionary vision of the world is not conducive to creating a world order aimed at achieving those very objectives.

The next stake being aimed at the heart of state sovereignty and inclusionary diplomacy is that if governments won’t allow their states to move into the direction of democracy, then the “democracy-caucus of like-minded nations” must help the process along. Helping the process along, as we are seeing in Iraq, can take many forms. What is being proposed at the United Nations is the creation of a “Democracy Fund” with sponsorship by the various members of the “democracy-caucus” to be managed by the United Nations. The Fund’s goal is to identify and support individuals and groups whose aims are to engender, install and/or promote democracy in their respective countries. While seemingly a commendable objective in light of the important role civil society and non-government organizations fulfill in all sectors and across the world, a more careful analysis will shed light on some emerging pitfalls. The Fund lacks any criteria for selection of recipients, and therefore the “caucus” has domain over to whom and for what purpose financing will be given, as long they have an agenda for a democracy consistent with their own. This creates a situation where states may deem the Fund as supporting, at worst, subversive elements, and, at best, actors outside of domestic legal systems. The result is that domestic laws which may not allow for groups outside the legal system to receive funding (such as some faith-based groups, for example) or who may not even allow for external financing of registered political parties, civil society etc., will be faced with a situation where their domestic laws are being challenged by partisan interests working under the umbrella of the United Nations. In other words, the United Nations is being pitted against state sovereignty. The concept of the sovereignty of the state and its immunity from external interference, a basic premise of the international legal order, will be lost with the legalization of external interference in internal state affairs.